Violence in the scriptures - Revision history

SpencerMarsh at 20:31, 18 February 2026

2026-02-18T20:31:55Z

GregSmith: /* Do the scriptures endorse child abuse? */

2024-05-27T05:10:16Z

Do the scriptures endorse child abuse?

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:10, 27 May 2024
Line 755:		Line 755:

	= Do the scriptures endorse child abuse? =		= Do the scriptures endorse child abuse? =
			{{Navigation:Abuse}}

	{{BMCentral\|title=How Abraham’s Sacrifice of Isaac Illuminates the Atonement\|url=https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/how-abrahams-sacrifice-of-isaac-illuminates-the-atonement\|number=412}}		{{BMCentral\|title=How Abraham’s Sacrifice of Isaac Illuminates the Atonement\|url=https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/how-abrahams-sacrifice-of-isaac-illuminates-the-atonement\|number=412}}

GregSmith: /* The scriptures condemn the taking of innocent life */

2024-05-26T06:14:23Z

The scriptures condemn the taking of innocent life

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:14, 26 May 2024
Line 657:		Line 657:
	Scripture tells us that vengeance is God's ({{s\|\|Deuteronomy\|32\|35}}; {{s\|\|Romans\|12\|19}}; {{s\|\|Mormon\|3\|15}} {{s\|\|Mormon\|8\|20}}). Save in very specific circumstances (e.g., self-defence, or defence of another innocent), violence is not ours to inflict.		Scripture tells us that vengeance is God's ({{s\|\|Deuteronomy\|32\|35}}; {{s\|\|Romans\|12\|19}}; {{s\|\|Mormon\|3\|15}} {{s\|\|Mormon\|8\|20}}). Save in very specific circumstances (e.g., self-defence, or defence of another innocent), violence is not ours to inflict.

	=== The scriptures condemn the taking of innocent life ===		== The scriptures condemn the taking of innocent life ==
	A small sampling includes:		A small sampling includes:

GregSmith: /* But does God command us to be violent today? */

2024-05-26T06:14:15Z

But does God command us to be violent today?

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:14, 26 May 2024
Line 651:		Line 651:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	=== But does God command us to be violent today? ===		= But does God command us to be violent today? =

	One of the biggest reasons that people are concerned by the violence of God in scripture because humans are all too willing to use examples of ''divine'' violence as an excuse for their own violence.		One of the biggest reasons that people are concerned by the violence of God in scripture because humans are all too willing to use examples of ''divine'' violence as an excuse for their own violence.

GregSmith at 06:13, 26 May 2024

2024-05-26T06:13:41Z

Show changes

GregSmith: /* 1. Culture and language */

2024-05-26T06:04:34Z

1. Culture and language

@@ Line 165: / Line 165: @@
 We’ll now dive into the points made in the video in a little more detail.
-= 1. Culture and language =
+== 1. Culture and language ==
 War was a cultural reality for Israel and members of the ancient near east. It was a fight-or-die situation for many of them. Most of Israel's battles were fought on the defensive. It has been pointed out that Israel defended against the Amalekites who attacked them while traveling ({{s||Exodus|17|8}}) and that the Canaanite king of Arad attacked and captured some of the Israelites ({{s||Numbers|21|1}}); Israel countered the efforts of the Midiantes to lead them away from Yahweh through sexual transgression and idolatry ({{s||Numbers|5|}},31) Sihon refused peace offers from Israel and attacked them ({{s||Deuteronomy|2|}}, {{s||Numbers|1|}}), and so on.
@@ Line 213: / Line 213: @@
 == 4. Specific considerations about Canaan ==

GregSmith at 06:02, 26 May 2024

2024-05-26T06:02:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:02, 26 May 2024
Line 200:		Line 200:
	As Gary Millar writes, the concern of this destruction (''herem'') was "to see Israel established in a land purged of Canaanite idolatry as painlessly as possible." The goal was to "remove what is subject to [''herem''] laws (the idols)." The root of the dilemma Israel faced wasn’t "the people themselves, but their idolatrous way of life." Failure to remove the idolatry would put Israel in the position of the Canaanites and their idols before God. Israel would risk being consecrated to destruction. <ref>R. Gary Miller, ''Now Choose Life: Theology and Ethics in Deuteronomy'' (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 157.</ref>		As Gary Millar writes, the concern of this destruction (''herem'') was "to see Israel established in a land purged of Canaanite idolatry as painlessly as possible." The goal was to "remove what is subject to [''herem''] laws (the idols)." The root of the dilemma Israel faced wasn’t "the people themselves, but their idolatrous way of life." Failure to remove the idolatry would put Israel in the position of the Canaanites and their idols before God. Israel would risk being consecrated to destruction. <ref>R. Gary Miller, ''Now Choose Life: Theology and Ethics in Deuteronomy'' (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 157.</ref>

	Even so, the Israelites didn’t do an effective job removing the snare of idolatry from the land ({{s\|\|Ps.\|106\|34-35}}). Many of the Canaanites, as already noted, were still around "until this day," and many of them became forced laborers in Israel ({{s\|\|Joshua\|15\|63}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|16\|10}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|17\|12-13}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|1\|19, 21, 27-35}}).<ref>Copan, Paul ''Is God a Moral Monster?'' (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011). {{nc}}</ref>		Even so, the Israelites didn’t do an effective job removing the snare of idolatry from the land ({{s\|\|Ps.\|106\|34-35}}). Many of the Canaanites, as already noted, were still around "until this day," and many of them became forced laborers in Israel ({{s\|\|Joshua\|15\|63}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|16\|10}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|17\|12-13}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|1\|19,21,27-35}}).<ref>Copan, Paul ''Is God a Moral Monster?'' (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011). {{nc}}</ref>
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

GregSmith: Section 2. Archaelogy when inserted creates a duplication of Sections #2 and #3 after section #3. Very strange.

2024-05-26T06:01:10Z

Section 2. Archaelogy when inserted creates a duplication of Sections #2 and #3 after section #3. Very strange.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:01, 26 May 2024
Line 212:		Line 212:
	An additional note on language is that the Hebrew term ''haram'' usually translated as "utterly destroy" is better translated as "remove completely". This reinforces the theme of "driving them out", including their religion, and not "extermination". That seems to be how Nephi interprets the story (more below).		An additional note on language is that the Hebrew term ''haram'' usually translated as "utterly destroy" is better translated as "remove completely". This reinforces the theme of "driving them out", including their religion, and not "extermination". That seems to be how Nephi interprets the story (more below).

	~~== 2. Archaeology ==~~
	We started with culture and language because they inform the archaeology. Indeed, there is a scant archaeological evidence to support the widespread, instantaneous, "crush, kill, destroy, massacre" scenario that some naive critics and other uninformed people imagine.

	~~Peter Enns summarized:~~

	~~<blockquote>~~
	As I argue (along with biblical scholars in general) in ''The Bible Tells Me So'', the hyperbolic nature of Israel’s accounts combined with the extremely unfavorable archaeological evidence for a conquest of any sort suggests that "the conquest" didn’t happen. The biblical accounts reflect later storytelling of perhaps ancient battles and tribal tensions (which may or may not have involved early Israelites).<ref>Pete Enns "[https://peteenns.com/canaanite-genocide-its-ok-because-it-wasnt-that-bad-was-it/ Canaanite genocide]: it’s OK because it wasn’t THAT bad (was it?)" (accessed 3 December 2018)</ref>
	~~</blockquote>~~

	Enns may be guilty of a bit of hyperbole himself when he says that the conquest "didn’t happen". There ''is'' evidence of destruction at this time in Israel’s history. Just not a lot.<ref>Marc Brettler "The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible".</ref>

	Latter-day Saint Biblical Scholars David Rolph Seely, Dana Pike, and Richard Holzapfel summarized various proposed solutions to the lack of archaeological evidence, and also offer some valid pushback to some. Their summary of some of the archaeological evidence in favor of the conquest is informative:

	~~<blockquote>~~
	It has become common among biblical scholars to downplay, if not eliminate all together, the biblical account of a large number of Israelite "outsiders" conquering Canaan as the explanations for the origins of the Israelites. Those who accept that at least a small group of people managed to escape Egyptian bondage and flee to Canaan see this group's experience as becoming normative for a much larger and diverse population that eventually became known as "Israel." More extreme views deny that any outsiders from Egypt played a role in the formation of Israel in Canaan. Such view denies the historical value of the Old Testament, a position that is not warranted.

	Based on archaeological evidence, the most common alternative theories explaining Israelite origins in Canaan are the "infiltration" theory, that mitigating pastoralists peacefully and gradually coalesced in the highlands of Canaan, and the theory of "internal emergence," that the Israelites were really displaced Canaanites who, for various reasons, broke off from the city-state system and established themselves in the highlands. But neither of these latter theories explains the unique national account of Egyptian bondage contained in the Bible. Nor do scholars with such views generally accept the biblical depiction of Israelites as a covenant people in some ways distinct from others in the region. Rather, they propose a development of Israelite identify and practices that eventually differentiated them from others in the region. While there may well be portions of the Israelite population that arose in ways other than what the Bible depicts, the general biblical account is given primacy in this volume. ...

	One major reason for these alternative proposals is the challenge of matching the biblical account of the conquest with the current results of archaeological excavations in Israel. For example, most archaeologists accept the existence of a walled city at Jericho in the Middle Bronze II period (ending about 1550 B.C.), but suggest there were no walls and little or no population at Jericho during the 1200s, the period in which we think the Bible places Joshua’s conquest (a few archaeologists do suggest the Middle Bronze Age walls were standing in the 1200s). If one accepts that situation, then how does one interpret the narrative about conquering Jericho?

	Similarly, archaeologists think the city of Ai was uninhabited in the 1200s. A different situation exists for cities like Lachish, Shechem, and Hazor. For example, the book of Joshua claims the Israelites "burnt Hazor with fire" ({{s\|\|Josh\|11\|11}}). Excavators did find evidence that Hazor was destroyed about 1230 B.C., including a thick layer of ash resulting from a massive fire. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know from this evidence who was responsible for this destruction, whether Israelites, the Sea Peoples, or some other group. So even when archaeological evidence as is currently available and interpreted matches the basic account of Joshua—sometimes it does, sometimes it does not—the physical evidence alone is not conclusive as a testimony of the validity of biblical claims.

	One set of data that indicated change at the end of the Late Bronze Age (1200 B.C.) is the evidence of a large increase in the number of small, unwalled settlements in the central hill country of Canaan that attest several new architectural features Some scholars see this as evidence of the emergence of Israel in the land. While this seems likely, such evidence still only tells us someone arrived, not who. This evidence does correlate well with the biblical depiction of where the Israelites settled and with the Merneptah inscription, which indicates a "people" named Israel lived in the land (see ''Inscription: The Merneptah Stela'', page 150). Also, in a literary vein, the book of Joshua shares similar styles and claims (as well as some differences) with most ancient Near Eastern texts describing military victories.<ref>Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, Dana M. Pike, David Rolph Seely ''Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament'' (Deseret Book Company: Salt Lake City, UT, 2003), 160</ref>
	~~</blockquote>~~

	~~It should be noted that the above was published in 2003, and the archaeological evidence to support the biblical account still has not appeared.~~

	LDS author Jeffrey Bradshaw makes similar points about archaeology (following the majority of biblical scholars).<ref>"[https://interpreterfoundation.org/knowhy-ot\|18a-did-joshua-utterly-destroy-the-canaanites Did Joshua Utterly Destroy the Canaanites?}"</ref>

	~~Other scholars have made some intriguing discoveries regarding archaeology:~~

	~~<embedvideo service="youtube">v=3e8FRcOJf5E&t</embedvideo>{{blankline}}~~

	~~Copan has also discussed the archaeology in the same terms as Holzapfel, Seely, and Pike and summarized why it is difficult to pin some things down:~~

	~~<blockquote>~~
	With its mention of gradual infiltration and occupation ({{s\|\|Josh.\|13\|1-7}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|16\|10}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|17\|12}}), the biblical text leads us to expect what archaeology has confirmed—namely, that widespread destruction of cities didn’t take place and that gradual assimilation did. Only three cities (citadels or fortresses, as we’ve seen) were burned—Jericho, Ai, and Hazor ({{s\|\|Josh.\|6\|24}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|8\|28}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|11\|13}}). All tangible aspects of the Canaanites’ culture—buildings and homes—would have remained very much intact (cf. {{s\|\|Deut.\|6\|10-11}}: "cities which you did not build"). This makes a lot of sense if Israel was to settle down in the same region—a lot less clean-up!

	Furthermore, if we had lived back in Israel in the Late Bronze Age (1400–1200 BC) and looked at an Israelite and a Canaanite standing next to each other, we wouldn’t have detected any noticeable differences between them; they would have been virtually indistinguishable in dress, homes, tableware, pottery, and even language (cf. {{s\|2\|Kings\|18\|26, 28}}, {{s\|\|Isa.\|19\|18}}). This shouldn’t be all that surprising, as the Egyptian influence on both these peoples was quite strong.

	What’s more, Israel itself wasn’t a pure race. For example, Joseph married an Egyptian woman, Asenath, who gave birth to Manasseh and Ephraim ({{s\|\|Gen.\|41\|50}}); a "mixed multitude" came out of Egypt with them ({{s\|\|Exod.\|12\|23}}; {{s\|\|Num.\|11\|4}}); and other Gentiles like Rahab could be readily incorporated into Israel by intermarrying if they were willing to embrace the God of Israel. So how might Israelites distinguish themselves? Typically, by identifying their tribal or village and regional connections—for example, "Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite" ({{s\|\|Judg.\|3\|15}}), "Izban of Bethlehem" ({{s\|\|Judg.\|12\|8}}), "Elon the Zebulunite" ({{s\|\|Judg.\|12\|11}}).

	On the religious front, again, the Scriptures lead us to expect what archaeology supports. Yes, like the Canaanites, the Israelites sacrificed, had priests, burned incense, and worshiped at a "shrine" (the tabernacle). And though the Israelites were called to remain distinct in their moral behavior, theology, and worship, they were often ensnared by the immorality and idolatry of the Canaanite peoples. For example, Israel mimicked the Phoenicians’ notorious practice of ritual infant sacrifice to the Baals and Asherahs and to Molech (e.g., {{s\|2\|Kings\|23\|10}}; cf. {{s\|\|Lev.\|18\|21}}; {{s\|\|Deut.\|18\|10}}). However, archaeologists have discovered that by 1000 BC (during the Iron Age), Canaanites were no longer an identifiable entity in Israel. (I’m assuming that the exodus from Egypt took place sometime in the thirteenth century BC). Around this time also, Israelites were worshiping a national God, whose dominant personal name was Yahweh ("the Lord"). An additional significant change from the Late Bronze to Iron Age was that town shrines in Canaan had been abandoned but not relocated elsewhere—say, to the hill villages. This suggests that a new people with a distinct theological bent had migrated here, had gradually occupied the territory, and had eventually become dominant.

	We could point to a well-supported parallel scenario in the ancient Near East. The same kind of gradual infiltration took place by the Amorites, who had moved into Babylonia decades before 2000 BC. (Hammurabi himself was an Amorite who ruled Babylon.) They eventually occupied and controlled key cities and exerted political influence, which is attested by changes in many personal names in the literature and inscriptions. Babylonia’s culture didn’t change in its buildings, clothing, and ceramics, but a significant social shift took place. Likewise, we see the same gradual transition taking place in Canaan based on the same kinds of evidence archaeologists typically utilize. We’re reminded once again to avoid simplistic Sunday school versions of how Canaan came to be occupied by Israel.<ref>Paul Copan ''Is God a Moral Monster?'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011) 351-52 </ref>
	~~</blockquote>~~

	== 3. Morality ==		== 3. Morality ==

GregSmith: /* What’s the story? */

2024-05-26T06:00:16Z

What’s the story?

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:00, 26 May 2024
Line 164:		Line 164:

	We’ll now dive into the points made in the video in a little more detail.		We’ll now dive into the points made in the video in a little more detail.

			= 1. Culture and language =
			War was a cultural reality for Israel and members of the ancient near east. It was a fight-or-die situation for many of them. Most of Israel's battles were fought on the defensive. It has been pointed out that Israel defended against the Amalekites who attacked them while traveling ({{s\|\|Exodus\|17\|8}}) and that the Canaanite king of Arad attacked and captured some of the Israelites ({{s\|\|Numbers\|21\|1}}); Israel countered the efforts of the Midiantes to lead them away from Yahweh through sexual transgression and idolatry ({{s\|\|Numbers\|5\|}},31) Sihon refused peace offers from Israel and attacked them ({{s\|\|Deuteronomy\|2\|}}, {{s\|\|Numbers\|1\|}}), and so on.

			By this moment in Israel’s history, they had become a theocratic people-nation that wanted to continue to show their counterparts their faith in Yahweh and his sovereignty as the only true God. The command to displace the Canaanite came at this unique part of their history during which war was their reality. God was giving a specific command for a specific purpose. The picture that we get from the whole of the biblical text tells a story of gradual infiltration, strategizing, victory here and there, and so on.

			To begin, we need to understand what the Israelites thought of these texts as they wrote them. Did they intend the text to be literal? How would they have understood them? How did God "speak unto them according to their language that they might come to understanding?" ({{s\|2\|Nephi\|31\|3}}). Paul Copan and Matthew Flanagan give an answer to this, which summarizes the view of "most scholars generally"—that the Canaanite account contains "hagiographic hyperbole":
			<blockquote>
			The basic idea is that the accounts of Israel’s early battles in Canaan are narrated in a particular style, which is not intended to be literal in all of its details and contains a lot of hyperbole, formulaic language and literary expressions for rhetorical effect. We argue in our book that the evidence both from within the Bible and from other ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts supports this conclusion.<ref>Matthew Flanagan, Paul Copan Interview with Jonathan Merrit "[https://religionnews.com/2015/01/12/god-command-genocide-bible Did God command genocide in the Bible]?" (accessed 5 January 2019). See also Pete Enns, "[https://peteenns.com/the-canaanites-werent-the-worst-sinners-ever-engaging-copan-and-flannagan-on-canaanite-extermination The Canaanites weren’t the 'worst sinners ever']: engaging Copan and Flannagan on Canaanite extermination" (accessed 5 January 2019) /</ref>
			</blockquote>

			Paul Copan elaborated elsewhere:

			<blockquote>
			Most Christians read Joshua’s conquest stories with the backdrop of Sunday school lessons via flannel graph or children’s illustrated Bible stories. The impression that’s left is a black-and-white rendition of a literal crush, kill, and destroy mission. A closer look at the biblical text reveals a lot more nuance—and a lot less bloodshed. In short, the conquest of Canaan was far less widespread and harsh than many people assume.

			Like his ancient Near Eastern contemporaries<ref>Copan lists many of those that used this type of rhetoric on page 328 of "Is God a Moral Monster?" This list includes Egypt’s Tuthmosis III, Hittite king Mursilly II, the "Bulletin" of Ramses II, the Merneptah Stele, Mesha of Moab, and Sennacherib the Assyrian Ruler.</ref>, Joshua used the language of conventional warfare rhetoric. This language sounds like bragging and exaggeration to our ears. Notice first the sweeping language in {{s\|\|Joshua\|10\|40}}: "Thus Joshua struck all the land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings. He left no survivor, but he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded." Joshua used the rhetorical bravado language of his day, asserting that all the land was captured, all the kings defeated, and all the Canaanites destroyed (cf. {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|10\|40-42}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|11\|16-23}}: "Joshua took the whole land . . . and gave . . . it for an inheritance to Israel"). Yet, as we will see, Joshua himself acknowledged that this wasn’t literally so.

			Scholars readily agree that Judges is literarily linked to Joshua. Yet the early chapters of Judges (which, incidentally, repeat the death of Joshua) show that the task of taking over the land was far from complete. In {{s\|\|Judges\|2\|3}}, God says, "I will not drive them out before you." Earlier, {{s_short\|\|Judges\|1\|21,27-28}} asserted that "[they] did not drive out the Jebusites"; "[they] did not take possession"; "they did not drive them out completely." These nations remained "to this day" ({{s_short\|\|Judg.\|1\|21}}). The peoples who had apparently been wiped out reappear in the story. Many Canaanite inhabitants simply stuck around.

			Some might accuse Joshua of being misleading or of getting it wrong. Not at all. He was speaking the language that everyone in his day would have understood. Rather than trying to deceive, Joshua was just saying he had fairly well trounced the enemy. On the one hand, Joshua says, "There were no Anakim left in the land" ({{s\|\|Josh.\|11\|22}}); indeed, they were "utterly destroyed [haram]" in the hill country ({{s_short\|\|Joshua\|11\|21}}). Literally? Not according to the very same Joshua! In fact, Caleb later asked permission to drive out the Anakites from the hill country {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|(14\|12-15}}; cf. {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|15\|13-19}}). Again, Joshua wasn’t being deceptive. Given the use of ancient Near Eastern hyperbole, he could say without contradiction that nations "remain among you"; he went on to warn Israel not to mention, swear by, serve, or bow down to their gods ({{s\|\|Josh.\|23\|7}}, {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|12\|}}-{{s_short\|\|Joshua\|13\|}}; cf. {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|15\|63}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|16\|10}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|17\|13}}; {{s\|\|Judg.\|2\|10-13}}). Again, though the land "had rest from war" ({{s\|\|Josh.\|11\|23}}), chapters 13 and beyond tell us that much territory remained unpossessed {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|(13\|1}}). Tribe upon tribe failed to drive out the Canaanites ({{s_short\|\|Joshua\|13:13; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|15\|63}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|16\|10}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|17\|12-13}}, {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|18}}), and Joshua tells seven of the tribes, "How long will you put off entering to take possession of the land which the Lord, the God of your fathers, has given you?" ({{s_short\|\|Joshua\|18\|3}}). Furthermore, God told the Israelites that the process of driving out the Canaanites would be a gradual one, as {{s\|\|Deuteronomy\|7\|22}} anticipated and as {{s\|\|Judges\|2\|20-23}} reaffirmed. Whatever the reason behind Israel’s failure to drive them out—whether disobedience and/or God’s slow-but-sure approach—we’re still told by Joshua in sweeping terms that Israel wiped out all of the Canaanites. Just as we might say that a sports team "blew their opponents away" or "slaughtered" or "annihilated" them, the author (editor) likewise followed the rhetoric of his day.

			Joshua’s conventional warfare rhetoric was common in many other ancient Near Eastern military accounts in the second and first millennia BC. The language is typically exaggerated and full of bravado, depicting total devastation. The knowing ancient Near Eastern reader recognized this as hyperbole; the accounts weren’t understood to be literally true.<ref>Christopher J. H. Wright, ''Old Testament Ethics for the People of God'' (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 474-75; and Iain Provan, V. Phillips Long, and Tremper Longman III, ''A Biblical History of Israel'' (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 149.</ref> This language, Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen observes, has misled many Old Testament scholars in their assessments of the book of Joshua; some have concluded that the language of wholesale slaughter and total occupation—which didn’t (from all other indications) actually take place—proves that these accounts are falsehoods. But ancient Near Eastern accounts readily used "utterly/completely destroy" and other obliteration language even when the event didn’t literally happen that way.

			Let’s now return to the Old Testament text to press this point further. It’s true that {{s\|\|Joshua\|9\|}}–{{s\|\|Joshua\|12\|}} utilizes the typical ancient Near Eastern literary devices for warfare. But at the book’s end, Joshua matter-of-factly assumes the continued existence of Canaanite peoples that could pose a threat to Israel. He warns Israel against idolatry and getting entangled in their ways: "For if you ever go back and cling to the rest of these nations, these which remain among you, and intermarry with them, so that you associate with them and they with you, know with certainty that the Lord your God will not continue to drive these nations out from before you" ({{s\|\|Josh.\|23\|12-13}}). You get the idea.

			Earlier in {{s\|\|Deuteronomy\|7\|2-5}}, we find a similar tension. On the one hand, God tells Israel that they should "defeat" and "utterly destroy [haram]" the Canaanites (v. 2)—a holy consecration to destruction. On the other hand, he immediately goes on to say in the very next verses:

			<blockquote>
			Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your sons away "from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. But thus, you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim [figures of Asherah, who was the Canaanite goddess of sexuality/sensuality], and burn their graven images with fire" (vv. 3-5).
			</blockquote>

			If the Canaanites were to be completely obliterated, why this discussion about intermarriage or treaties? The final verse emphasizes that the ultimate issue was religious: Israel was to destroy altars, images, and sacred pillars. In other words, destroying Canaanite religion was more important than destroying Canaanite people.<ref>Gordon J. Wenham, ''Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Pentateuch'' (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003) 137.</ref> This point was made earlier in {{s\|\|Exodus\|34\|12-13}}: "Watch yourself that you make no covenant with the inhabitants of the land into which you are going, or it will become a snare in your midst. But rather, you are to tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and cut down their Asherim." In {{s\|\|Deuteronomy\|12\|2-3}}, we read the same emphasis on destroying Canaanite religion: "You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess serve their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. You shall tear down their altars and smash their sacred pillars and burn their Asherim with fire, and you shall cut down the engraved images of their gods and obliterate their name from that place."

			As Gary Millar writes, the concern of this destruction (''herem'') was "to see Israel established in a land purged of Canaanite idolatry as painlessly as possible." The goal was to "remove what is subject to [''herem''] laws (the idols)." The root of the dilemma Israel faced wasn’t "the people themselves, but their idolatrous way of life." Failure to remove the idolatry would put Israel in the position of the Canaanites and their idols before God. Israel would risk being consecrated to destruction. <ref>R. Gary Miller, ''Now Choose Life: Theology and Ethics in Deuteronomy'' (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 157.</ref>

			Even so, the Israelites didn’t do an effective job removing the snare of idolatry from the land ({{s\|\|Ps.\|106\|34-35}}). Many of the Canaanites, as already noted, were still around "until this day," and many of them became forced laborers in Israel ({{s\|\|Joshua\|15\|63}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|16\|10}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|17\|12-13}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|1\|19, 21, 27-35}}).<ref>Copan, Paul ''Is God a Moral Monster?'' (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011). {{nc}}</ref>
			</blockquote>

			So, we learn that:

			* The language does not mean that all men, women, and children were or should have been destroyed, as can be seen by simply reading the entire narrative.
			* The language is aimed at getting rid of Canaanite religion and driving the people out. Evidence of this is the command to not intermarry or make treaties with the Canaanites after the battles. This is reinforced by the "sending of the wasp before you to drive them out". Indeed, by the time that the Israelites arrived, most people would have fled before the judgement of God.
			* Large populations are left alive as is made clear by the end of the Book of Joshua and the beginning of the Book of Judges.
			* The language is typical of other ancient near eastern cultures
			This general pattern of "incapacitation" and "driving out" is reinforced by the narrative of Judah later on in the Bible.
			An additional note on language is that the Hebrew term ''haram'' usually translated as "utterly destroy" is better translated as "remove completely". This reinforces the theme of "driving them out", including their religion, and not "extermination". That seems to be how Nephi interprets the story (more below).

	== 2. Archaeology ==		== 2. Archaeology ==

GregSmith at 05:58, 26 May 2024

2024-05-26T05:58:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:58, 26 May 2024
Line 164:		Line 164:

	We’ll now dive into the points made in the video in a little more detail.		We’ll now dive into the points made in the video in a little more detail.

			== 2. Archaeology ==
			We started with culture and language because they inform the archaeology. Indeed, there is a scant archaeological evidence to support the widespread, instantaneous, "crush, kill, destroy, massacre" scenario that some naive critics and other uninformed people imagine.

			Peter Enns summarized:

			<blockquote>
			As I argue (along with biblical scholars in general) in ''The Bible Tells Me So'', the hyperbolic nature of Israel’s accounts combined with the extremely unfavorable archaeological evidence for a conquest of any sort suggests that "the conquest" didn’t happen. The biblical accounts reflect later storytelling of perhaps ancient battles and tribal tensions (which may or may not have involved early Israelites).<ref>Pete Enns "[https://peteenns.com/canaanite-genocide-its-ok-because-it-wasnt-that-bad-was-it/ Canaanite genocide]: it’s OK because it wasn’t THAT bad (was it?)" (accessed 3 December 2018)</ref>
			</blockquote>

			Enns may be guilty of a bit of hyperbole himself when he says that the conquest "didn’t happen". There ''is'' evidence of destruction at this time in Israel’s history. Just not a lot.<ref>Marc Brettler "The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible".</ref>

			Latter-day Saint Biblical Scholars David Rolph Seely, Dana Pike, and Richard Holzapfel summarized various proposed solutions to the lack of archaeological evidence, and also offer some valid pushback to some. Their summary of some of the archaeological evidence in favor of the conquest is informative:

			<blockquote>
			It has become common among biblical scholars to downplay, if not eliminate all together, the biblical account of a large number of Israelite "outsiders" conquering Canaan as the explanations for the origins of the Israelites. Those who accept that at least a small group of people managed to escape Egyptian bondage and flee to Canaan see this group's experience as becoming normative for a much larger and diverse population that eventually became known as "Israel." More extreme views deny that any outsiders from Egypt played a role in the formation of Israel in Canaan. Such view denies the historical value of the Old Testament, a position that is not warranted.

			Based on archaeological evidence, the most common alternative theories explaining Israelite origins in Canaan are the "infiltration" theory, that mitigating pastoralists peacefully and gradually coalesced in the highlands of Canaan, and the theory of "internal emergence," that the Israelites were really displaced Canaanites who, for various reasons, broke off from the city-state system and established themselves in the highlands. But neither of these latter theories explains the unique national account of Egyptian bondage contained in the Bible. Nor do scholars with such views generally accept the biblical depiction of Israelites as a covenant people in some ways distinct from others in the region. Rather, they propose a development of Israelite identify and practices that eventually differentiated them from others in the region. While there may well be portions of the Israelite population that arose in ways other than what the Bible depicts, the general biblical account is given primacy in this volume. ...

			One major reason for these alternative proposals is the challenge of matching the biblical account of the conquest with the current results of archaeological excavations in Israel. For example, most archaeologists accept the existence of a walled city at Jericho in the Middle Bronze II period (ending about 1550 B.C.), but suggest there were no walls and little or no population at Jericho during the 1200s, the period in which we think the Bible places Joshua’s conquest (a few archaeologists do suggest the Middle Bronze Age walls were standing in the 1200s). If one accepts that situation, then how does one interpret the narrative about conquering Jericho?

			Similarly, archaeologists think the city of Ai was uninhabited in the 1200s. A different situation exists for cities like Lachish, Shechem, and Hazor. For example, the book of Joshua claims the Israelites "burnt Hazor with fire" ({{s\|\|Josh\|11\|11}}). Excavators did find evidence that Hazor was destroyed about 1230 B.C., including a thick layer of ash resulting from a massive fire. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know from this evidence who was responsible for this destruction, whether Israelites, the Sea Peoples, or some other group. So even when archaeological evidence as is currently available and interpreted matches the basic account of Joshua—sometimes it does, sometimes it does not—the physical evidence alone is not conclusive as a testimony of the validity of biblical claims.

			One set of data that indicated change at the end of the Late Bronze Age (1200 B.C.) is the evidence of a large increase in the number of small, unwalled settlements in the central hill country of Canaan that attest several new architectural features Some scholars see this as evidence of the emergence of Israel in the land. While this seems likely, such evidence still only tells us someone arrived, not who. This evidence does correlate well with the biblical depiction of where the Israelites settled and with the Merneptah inscription, which indicates a "people" named Israel lived in the land (see ''Inscription: The Merneptah Stela'', page 150). Also, in a literary vein, the book of Joshua shares similar styles and claims (as well as some differences) with most ancient Near Eastern texts describing military victories.<ref>Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, Dana M. Pike, David Rolph Seely ''Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament'' (Deseret Book Company: Salt Lake City, UT, 2003), 160</ref>
			</blockquote>

			It should be noted that the above was published in 2003, and the archaeological evidence to support the biblical account still has not appeared.

			LDS author Jeffrey Bradshaw makes similar points about archaeology (following the majority of biblical scholars).<ref>"[https://interpreterfoundation.org/knowhy-ot\|18a-did-joshua-utterly-destroy-the-canaanites Did Joshua Utterly Destroy the Canaanites?}"</ref>

			Other scholars have made some intriguing discoveries regarding archaeology:

			<embedvideo service="youtube">v=3e8FRcOJf5E&t</embedvideo>{{blankline}}

			Copan has also discussed the archaeology in the same terms as Holzapfel, Seely, and Pike and summarized why it is difficult to pin some things down:

			<blockquote>
			With its mention of gradual infiltration and occupation ({{s\|\|Josh.\|13\|1-7}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|16\|10}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|17\|12}}), the biblical text leads us to expect what archaeology has confirmed—namely, that widespread destruction of cities didn’t take place and that gradual assimilation did. Only three cities (citadels or fortresses, as we’ve seen) were burned—Jericho, Ai, and Hazor ({{s\|\|Josh.\|6\|24}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|8\|28}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|11\|13}}). All tangible aspects of the Canaanites’ culture—buildings and homes—would have remained very much intact (cf. {{s\|\|Deut.\|6\|10-11}}: "cities which you did not build"). This makes a lot of sense if Israel was to settle down in the same region—a lot less clean-up!

			Furthermore, if we had lived back in Israel in the Late Bronze Age (1400–1200 BC) and looked at an Israelite and a Canaanite standing next to each other, we wouldn’t have detected any noticeable differences between them; they would have been virtually indistinguishable in dress, homes, tableware, pottery, and even language (cf. {{s\|2\|Kings\|18\|26, 28}}, {{s\|\|Isa.\|19\|18}}). This shouldn’t be all that surprising, as the Egyptian influence on both these peoples was quite strong.

			What’s more, Israel itself wasn’t a pure race. For example, Joseph married an Egyptian woman, Asenath, who gave birth to Manasseh and Ephraim ({{s\|\|Gen.\|41\|50}}); a "mixed multitude" came out of Egypt with them ({{s\|\|Exod.\|12\|23}}; {{s\|\|Num.\|11\|4}}); and other Gentiles like Rahab could be readily incorporated into Israel by intermarrying if they were willing to embrace the God of Israel. So how might Israelites distinguish themselves? Typically, by identifying their tribal or village and regional connections—for example, "Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite" ({{s\|\|Judg.\|3\|15}}), "Izban of Bethlehem" ({{s\|\|Judg.\|12\|8}}), "Elon the Zebulunite" ({{s\|\|Judg.\|12\|11}}).

			On the religious front, again, the Scriptures lead us to expect what archaeology supports. Yes, like the Canaanites, the Israelites sacrificed, had priests, burned incense, and worshiped at a "shrine" (the tabernacle). And though the Israelites were called to remain distinct in their moral behavior, theology, and worship, they were often ensnared by the immorality and idolatry of the Canaanite peoples. For example, Israel mimicked the Phoenicians’ notorious practice of ritual infant sacrifice to the Baals and Asherahs and to Molech (e.g., {{s\|2\|Kings\|23\|10}}; cf. {{s\|\|Lev.\|18\|21}}; {{s\|\|Deut.\|18\|10}}). However, archaeologists have discovered that by 1000 BC (during the Iron Age), Canaanites were no longer an identifiable entity in Israel. (I’m assuming that the exodus from Egypt took place sometime in the thirteenth century BC). Around this time also, Israelites were worshiping a national God, whose dominant personal name was Yahweh ("the Lord"). An additional significant change from the Late Bronze to Iron Age was that town shrines in Canaan had been abandoned but not relocated elsewhere—say, to the hill villages. This suggests that a new people with a distinct theological bent had migrated here, had gradually occupied the territory, and had eventually become dominant.

			We could point to a well-supported parallel scenario in the ancient Near East. The same kind of gradual infiltration took place by the Amorites, who had moved into Babylonia decades before 2000 BC. (Hammurabi himself was an Amorite who ruled Babylon.) They eventually occupied and controlled key cities and exerted political influence, which is attested by changes in many personal names in the literature and inscriptions. Babylonia’s culture didn’t change in its buildings, clothing, and ceramics, but a significant social shift took place. Likewise, we see the same gradual transition taking place in Canaan based on the same kinds of evidence archaeologists typically utilize. We’re reminded once again to avoid simplistic Sunday school versions of how Canaan came to be occupied by Israel.<ref>Paul Copan ''Is God a Moral Monster?'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011) 351-52 </ref>
			</blockquote>

	== 3. Morality ==		== 3. Morality ==